Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T02:17:14.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Examining the perceptions and effects of survey consequentiality across population subgroups

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2018

O. Ashton Morgan ,
William L. Huth  and
Paul Hindsley
O. Ashton Morgan*
Affiliation:
Appalachian State University, Economics, 3094 Peacock Hall, Boone, North Carolina, 28608-2026, USA, e-mail: morganoa@appstate.edu
William L. Huth
Affiliation:
University of West Florida, Marketing and Economics, Building 53, Pensacola, Florida, 32514, USA
Paul Hindsley
Affiliation:
Eckerd College, Environmental Studies, St. Petersburg, Florida, 33711, USA
*
*e-mail: morganoa@appstate.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent research examining voting behavior in contingent valuation referenda informs on how consequential survey respondents behave and its impact on willingness-to-pay (WTP) values. This research attempts to examine whether this behavior holds across population subgroups. We consider resident and nonresident users of artificial reefs and find improved construct validity for our resident models over nonresident models. Specifically, resident behavior is in line with a priori expectations with consequential residents more likely to vote in favor of a policy for additional reef funding – a result that is consistent with the “protest no” literature. Consequently, consequential resident voters exhibit a greater WTP than inconsequential voters. Nonresident behavior differs, however. For this subgroup, consequentiality does not influence voting behavior and WTP values do not differ by consequentiality. Overall, more work is required to appropriately identify WTP values for nonresident populations, particularly from a benefit-cost perspective, where appropriately identifying subgroup WTP values are a critical component of measuring the net present value of a given policy.

Keywords

Q26Q51Q57benefit-cost analysisconsequentialitycontingent valuationenvironmentwillingness to pay
Type
Article
Information
Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , Summer 2018 , pp. 305 - 322
Copyright
© Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bell, Frederick W., Bonn, Mark A. & Leeworthy, Vernon R.(1998). Economic Impact and Importance of Artificial Reefs in Northwest Florida. Office of Fisheries Management and Assistance Service, Florida Department of Environmental Protection.Google Scholar
Carson, Richard T., Flores, Nicholas E., Martin, Kerry M. & Wright, Jennifer L. (1996). Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies: Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-Public Goods. Land Economics, 72(1), 80–99.Google Scholar
Carson, Richard T., Flores, Nicholas E. & Meade, Norman F. (2001). Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence. Environmental and Resource Economics, 19, 173–210.Google Scholar
Carson, Richard T. & Groves, Theodore (2007). Incentive and Informational Properties of Preference Questions. Environmental and Resource Economics, 37(1), 181–210.10.1007/s10640-007-9124-5Google Scholar
Carson, Richard T., Groves, Theodore & List, John A. (2014). Consequentiality: A Theoretical and Experimental Exploration of a Single Binary Choice. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 1(1/2), 171–207.10.1086/676450Google Scholar
Duffield, John W., Neher, Christopher J. & Brown, Thomas C. (1992). Recreation Benefits of Instream Flow: Application to Montana’s Big Hole and Bitterroot Rivers. Water Resources Research, 28(9), 2169–2181.Google Scholar
Groothuis, Peter A. & Whitehead, John C. (2009). The Provision Point Mechanism and Scenario Rejection in Contingent Valuation. Agricultural & Resource Economics Review, 38(2), 271–280.Google Scholar
Groothuis, Peter A., Mohr, Tanga M., Whitehead, John C. & Cockerill, Kristin M. (2017). Endogenous Consequentiality in Stated Preference Referendum Data: The Influence of the Randomly Assigned Tax Amount. Land Economics, 93(2), 258–268.Google Scholar
Harrison, Glenn W. & Rutström, Elisabeth E. (2008). Experimental Evidence on the Existence of Hypothetical Bias in Value Elicitation Methods. In Plott, C. & Smith, V. L. (Eds.), Handbook of Results in Experimental Economics. New York: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Hausman, Jerry (2012). Contingent Valuation: From Dubious to Hopeless. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(4), 43–56.Google Scholar
Hess, Ronald W., Rushworth, Denis, Hynes, Michael V. & Peters, John E.(2005). Disposal Options for Ships. Rand Monograph Report, Rand Distribution Services, Santa Monica, CA.Google Scholar
Huth, William L., Morgan, Owen A. & Burkhart, Christopher(2015). Measuring Florida Artificial Reef Economic Benefits: A Synthesis. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Contract FWC-11231.Google Scholar
Johns, Grace, Leeworthy, Vernon R., Bell, Frederick W. & Bonn, Mark A.(2001). Socioeconomic Study of Reefs in Southwest Florida. Miami, FL., Hazen and Sawyer, P.C.Google Scholar
Kim, Ju-Yeon, Mjelde, James W., Kim, Tae-Kyun, Lee, Choong-Ki & Ahn, Kyung-Mo (2012). Comparing Willingness-to-Pay Between Residents and Non-residents When Correcting for Hypothetical Bias: Case of Endangered Spotted Seal in South Korea. Ecological Economics, 78, 123–131.10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.008Google Scholar
Landry, Craig E. & List, John (2007). Using Ex Ante Approaches to Obtain Credible Signals for Value in Contingent Markets: Evidence from the Field. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 89, 420–429.10.1111/j.1467-8276.2007.01017.xGoogle Scholar
List, John A. & Gallet, Craig A. (2001). What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values? Environmental and Resource Economics, 20, 241–254.10.1023/A:1012791822804Google Scholar
Loomis, John & Santiago, Luis E. (2011). Testing Differences in Estimation of River Recreation Benefits for International and Domestic Tourists as a Function of Single-Versus Multiple-Destination Day Trips. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, 20(2), 143–165.10.1080/19368623.2011.536058Google Scholar
Milon, J. Walter (1989). Contingent Valuation Experiments for Strategic Behavior. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 17, 293–308.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Robert C. & Carson, Richard T. (1989). Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. In Resources for the Future. Washington DC.Google Scholar
Oh, Chi-Ok, Draper, Jason & Dixon, Anthony W. (2010). Comparing Resident and Tourist Preferences for Public Beach Access and Related Amenities. Ocean and Coastal Management, 53, 245–251.10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2010.04.007Google Scholar
Rosenberger, Randall S. & Loomis, John B. (2000). Using Meta-Analysis for Benefit Transfer: In-Sample Convergent Validity Tests of an Outdoor Recreation Database. Water Resources Research, 36(4), 1097–1107.Google Scholar
Vossler, Christian A. & Evans, Mary F. (2009). Bridging the Gap Between the Field and the Lab: Environmental Goods, Policy Maker Input, and Consequentiality. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 58, 338–345.Google Scholar
Vossler, Christian A. & Watson, Sharon (2013). Understanding the Consequences of Consequentiality: Testing the Validity of Stated Preferences in the Field. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 86, 137–147.10.1016/j.jebo.2012.12.007Google Scholar
Whittington, Dale (2010). What Have We Learned from 20 years of Stated Preference Research in Developing Countries? Annual Review of Resource Economics, 2, 209–236.Google Scholar